Press "Enter" to skip to content

Twin masters

The killer combo is the War College report on the foolhardiness of war on Iraq plus the unsurprising revelation that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq from day one.

The first story confirms that Iraq is a distraction from the dangers of Al Qaeda. The second story explains why Bush would allow himself to be distracted. It’s time to give up on the claim that Bush knows things we don’t about Iraq’s danger to the United States.

Further, it’s time to stop claiming that Saddam’s defiance of the UN justified the invasion. Even if you still believe that Saddam was hiding WMD from Blix, it doesn’t matter. What’s more important: deposing Saddam (and remember that the UN had inspectors on the ground looking for WMD), or dealing with Al Qaeda? Even if you think Iraq was important, do you think it was more important than the people who blew up the World Trade Center?

Phil Carter has some nice additional commentary on the War College report.

6 Comments

  1. Kresh Kresh

    I thought there was a proven link between Saddam and Al Queda. Did this vanish while I wasn’t looking? I recall having read reports that Saddam harbored Al Queda in an on again/ off again fashion over the last decade. Besides, Bush wasn’t the first with the idea to remove Saddam. Clinton had brought up the idea years before and had in fact made it a “priority” of his administration. It is a matter of public record that he did this.

    “Further, it

  2. Good questions!

    Answer one: nope, no proven link. The only thing which has been shown is that Saddam talked to Osama bin Laden on occasion. If that’s sufficient reason to depose someone, there are quite a few other targets out there. See also this article.

    Answer two: according to John Bolton, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz — some of whom, I believe, currently work in the Bush administration — Clinton didn’t have a strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power. Which is why they felt obliged to recommend that he adopt one.

    Answer three: don’t change the subject. Bush didn’t say “we’re invading because Saddam has a bad human rights record,” and if he did, he’d be lying.

    I am always surprised at the number of so-called conservatives who believe that powerful countries have the obligation to invade less powerful countries that are not acting according to the powerful country’s ideals.

  3. Kresh Kresh

    Alright, Point one: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
    Besides the fact that Saddam wouldn’t want to be beholden to anyone who “rescued” his regime, what is your point? It’s known that Saddam didn’t opress his people based on religion, he killed them indescriminately. He had no use for religion. Terrorism, however, is often dressed in the clothes of a god, to help gain sympathy among those of the religious underclass. It doesn’t always work. Interesting article though.

    Now for Point Two: http://www.thesunlink.com/news/daily/march99/0325w1c.html

    Point Three: It wasn’t my intention to change the subject, but very well, back to WMD’s then… http://www.arkansas2004.com/iraq_wmd.htm

    “Bush didn’t say “we’re invading because Saddam has a bad human rights record,” and if he did, he’d be lying. I am always surprised at the number of so-called conservatives who believe that powerful countries have the obligation to invade less powerful countries that are not acting according to the powerful country’s ideals.” Quite right. If America did, we’d have to invade over half of the countries in charge of the UN Human Rights Committe. That’s be quite the pickle. Never mind the tongue-lashing we’d get from europe…

    But then again, you didn’t answer my question: What would have been a good justification (in YOUR eyes) to depose Saddam?

    If the threat of WMD wasn’t enough: http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/Archives/Archive_05/wwwboard/messages/205.html

    And the fear of Saddam giving one of the terrorist netowrks he supported any of the stuff, what was good provocation? Would this have been?
    http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq1.html
    http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.htm

    Either way, what sayeth you? Besides the obvious fact that I need to figure out how to imbed links in my postings. *sigh*

  4. Kresh Kresh

    Alright, Point one: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
    Besides the fact that Saddam wouldn’t want to be beholden to anyone who “rescued” his regime, what is your point? It’s known that Saddam didn’t opress his people based on religion, he killed them indescriminately. He had no use for religion. Terrorism, however, is often dressed in the clothes of a god, to help gain sympathy among those of the religious underclass. It doesn’t always work. Interesting article though.

    Now for Point Two: http://www.thesunlink.com/news/daily/march99/0325w1c.html

    Point Three: It wasn’t my intention to change the subject, but very well, back to WMD’s then… http://www.arkansas2004.com/iraq_wmd.htm

    “Bush didn’t say “we’re invading because Saddam has a bad human rights record,” and if he did, he’d be lying. I am always surprised at the number of so-called conservatives who believe that powerful countries have the obligation to invade less powerful countries that are not acting according to the powerful country’s ideals.” Quite right. If America did, we’d have to invade over half of the countries in charge of the UN Human Rights Committe. That’s be quite the pickle. Never mind the tongue-lashing we’d get from europe…

    But then again, you didn’t answer my question: What would have been a good justification (in YOUR eyes) to depose Saddam?

    If the threat of WMD wasn’t enough: http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/Archives/Archive_05/wwwboard/messages/205.html

    And the fear of Saddam giving one of the terrorist netowrks he supported any of the stuff, what was good provocation? Would this have been?
    http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq1.html
    http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.htm

    Either way, what sayeth you? Besides the obvious fact that I need to figure out how to imbed links in my postings. *sigh*

  5. Kresh Kresh

    Sorry about the double-post.

  6. Re: double-post — no worries. My server sucks.

    OK. Point one: The “secret memo” is not proof. It is Doug Feith’s case that there was a link. However, it does not address the intelligence to the contrary. It is not an attempt to present an unbiased viewpoint; it was, rather, a defense of Feith’s position. And it wasn’t a good defense, because it was merely a list of positive evidence.

    I see your Feith memo, and raise you this article, which does what Feith failed to do: the author raises specific and substantive issues with the intelligence he disagrees with.

    Point two: that article says that Clinton decided not to try and overturn the regime by force after all. “A regime change cannot be done by imposing a new regime by military force from outside, even assuming that would be possible.”

    The War College report did not say it was foolish to attempt regime change. It said it was foolish to invade Iraq. There’s a difference.

    Point three: you’ve mistaken me for a Clinton supporter. That’s not actually accurate. I thought Clinton was an adequate President who used military adventures (such as the Sudan bombings) to distract people from his domestic problems. So sure — I’m willing to agree that Clinton was guilty of the same sort of opportunism.

    Point four: nope, I didn’t answer your question. It’s irrelevant. All I said was “it

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.